Court Hears Case Against INEC Chairman On Assets Declaration Today

Chief Judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Justice John Tsoho, has set for hearing the case against the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Mahmud Yakubu, over alleged breach of Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), rules.

The 2023 general elections may be under threat, if the reliefs of the plaintiff in a suit seeking to make public the assets of the chairman of INEC are granted and INEC chairman found wanting after investigation.

The case is expected to come up before the court today, Monday, September 26, 2022. Already, hearing notices have been sent to all parties in the matter

Professor Yakubu and the CCB were dragged before the court, in suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/33/2021 over his asset declaration.

The plaintiff in the suit, Hon. Emmanuel Agonsi, is seeking an order of mandamus directing and compelling the 1st Respondent (CCB) either by its staff, officers, privies, servants or otherwise howsoever described to issue, comply with and/or make available to the Applicant or his privies or Counsel, information and details of the Assets Declarations Forms of the 2nd Respondent (Prof. Yakubu) and his unmarried adult children kept by the 1st Respondent as requested in the Applicant’s letter of 17th December, 2020; as well as accept payment of the appropriate fees from the Applicant forthwith.

RELATED

IAWPA Congratulates Americans On Independence Day

1 hour ago

Release NDDC Forensic Audit Report Or I Resign As FCT Minister, Wike Tells Federal Gov’t

2 hours ago

The plaintiff, through his counsel, Solomon Okon Apke, Esq., also prayed the court for an order of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent, either by itself, officer, staff or nominee to forthwith produce for the examination of this Honourable Court certified copies of the Assets Declaration Forms of the 2nd Respondent and his unmarried adult children submitted to the 1st Respondent for the period of 2007 — 2012 and 2015 — 2020 and any other ones declared thereafter.

The plaintiff in the suit also sought for the following reliefs: A declaration that the 1st Respondent has a statutory and public duty to furnish the Applicant information and details concerning the 2nd Respondent as contained in the Applicant’s letter of request dated 17th December, 2020.

“A declaration that the refusal or failure of the 1st Respondent to respond to or comply with the Applicant’s request as contained in his Letter dated 17th December, 2020 constitutes a refusal/failure of the 1st Respondent’s statutory and/or public duty to the Applicant and is therefore unlawful, illegal, abuse of powers, abuse of discretion and ultra vires.